Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Let us mention a few specific trends of our life now days.
Literally, every day a new technology, or new profession, or even new area
of knowledge shows up, or an "old" technology, profession or, area of knowledge
develops a new face, or a new area of implementation. This demands two
skills from every single individual on the global job market: first, flexibility
in a skills set, and second, creativity while doing work.
Literally, in every single point of the Earth, representatives of different
nations and cultures meet on job places, in classes, on markets of goods,
in the areas of arts, science, politics, or just on the streets. They bring
with them their specific languages, customs, lifestyles, beliefs, foods,
clothes, expectations, opinions, generally speaking, all kinds of values.
This demands at least two things every single individual in his or
her public life: first tolerance of the strange values, and second, the
ability to make contact with strangers.
These two points, mentioned above, meet and support each other, regarding
every single subject of human activity today. This "meeting" affects industry,
science, arts, everyday life. All subjects, ideas, notions of life, science,
any profession, or even professional responsibilities, doings of business,
family relations, whatever, become doubtful, flexible, open
to development, challenging for every single worker in every single area,
every single job place. Using philosophical language, I would say that
everyone today has to be able to see strange faces in useful things and
understandable faces in strange things.
While asking about familiar things what is new here, and what is familiar
in strange things as well, we have to understand their underlying ideas,
to learn again and again what is something. It may sound strange regarding
such a profession as, for example, quality assurance or computer programming,
but it is reality. At least, this is definitely the reality
of such a person whom we call "an artist in one's work". One of the TRENDS
of today life is as this life requires more and more people to be artists
in their work.
Now, how do we provide this in the educational process?
Let us just mention a few points.
In educational dialogue a teacher and students on one point are equal:
their opinions about the subject to learn are equal. It does not matter
how much all of them know. Talking about differences in today subject knowledge
it is important to stress: a teacher knows more then students how much
this subject is doubtful, mysterious, argumentative, unknown. I am talking
about today teacher, the teacher, which is really educated and cognitive.
There is no any single piece of today knowledge all professionals agree
with. Consequently, today knowledge is, first of all, the argument about
this knowledge. So we do not have any reason to hide this from our students,
but controversially have to prepare them for argument which exactly means
- for thinking. To provide this we conduct the educational process through:
So, what do our students achieve on this way?
For the first, they learn to see their professional subject in different
ways, through the eyes of each other. This makes them capable to be creative
regarding the subject.
For the second, one becoming capable to see the subject from the different
point of view, develops oneself's personality, particularly, intuition
and critical thinking.
For the third, the students start to understand the educational process
itself, become to be capable for self studies.
For the fourth, people in our dialogues perfect their communication skills,
ability for team work.
Finally, there is one non-professional side effect: practically every
participant
obtains, say, stress resistance. It happens because they get accustomed
to discuss and to think about any subject, therefore they are able to think
about and understand any stressful factor which effects their lives. This
is the main tool to escape a stress. By the way, any kind of psychotherapy
essentially directed on this target: to turn a stressful factor into subject
for thought and consciousness.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
The following is more theoretical research about dialogue in general terms.
One of my guidelines are mental experiments of Galileo
Galilei. As a starting point he used very banal situation: a bronze ball
is rolling along plane. Then Galilei made some edition: let it be, he said,
the ball is absolutely smooth and the plane as well, then let the plane
be infinite. Using this device Galilei in his famous Dialogues developed
the notion of inertia.
I will try something alike. There are two related points of my consideration
of a dialogue. The first one is dialogue as essential form of being of
ideas. Secondary, I search for real dialogue, as a kind of conversation
in its ideal, ultimate, logical form. These theoretical tools enable
us to analyze different life cases, solve practical problems.
Once again, whatever I am going to tell here is mostly logical forms like
Galilei's ball and plane. I would call these exercises logical games, or
logical toys, logical toy machines.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
I will start with a statement: dialogue is a form of being of ideas.
What does it mean, when we say one has an idea concerning the universe,
or a number, of beauty or a table, of being or nothing, of whatever? Different
people can say absolutely different things about the matter.
"So what? Let everyone have his or her own idea," one can say.
"But what exactly is our subject?" I would ask.
"Everyone is right, the subject is all these together," another one could
say.
"But how is this possible?" I would ask again.
"The subject is golden mean between all given definitions," someone could
intervene.
"But what does it specifically mean? What is this?"
Taking seriously this question I have to find proofs of my understanding,
and all my opponents have to do so. Since this started I would call them
interlocutors and the whole process as an interlocution or intercourse
We know this interlocution or debate can continue infinitely, at least
the history of human thought and everyday life as well, shows this. Let
us imagine this infinite debate happens. Every single point of view has been
developed
as much as possible, becomes more and more specific, reflects the subject
better and better and definitely can do this further. Let us remember these
points of view are contrary, and so being developed are becoming more and
more contrary, go away, and at the same time they more and more touch each
other, become contiguous, tied. Let us mention also that every point of
view now is much more clear for its author, and all the development, clearness,
perfect reflection are possible through dialogue, are results of dialogue,
just are in dialogue. In other words, the dialogue appears to be real form of
being of ideas.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Finally, what is the idea of a subject? I would say
this is a dialogue about the subject. The idea of a subject = the dialogue
about the subject.
Now a question is whether it is a whole truth? Not yet. We certainly see
that idea shows its dialogical face while has been being developed. We
even know this phenomenon not only theoretically, but practically, when
disputants after hot dispute continue it while they stay alone. It is quite
clear if one argues with one's opponent in aloneness this opponent now
exists in the one's mind like rather independent quasi subject , in other
words, interlocutors accept their opponents as certain psychological nuclei
in their own minds.
If so, what would we say about different opinions of different persons
that appeared in the very beginning?
In order to approach an answer we must come back from the infinitely
developed
idea to the starting point. Can we point precisely to the moment when our
interlocutors' notions became related to each other? It seems so. This
started when the very first proofs had appeared. They were created to respond
on challenge of each other. If we then imagine that there is no opponent
for a single vision, I mean, not at all, there is neither contents nor
even reason to respond. How can this vision be developed? In this case
even an author of the sentence has been stated cannot be aware what it
exactly means.
So, a strange opponent's vision is absolutely necessary to develop any
idea from the very beginning. Is this the whole truth now? Not yet.
Not yet, because thinking further about our issue we have to deliberate
how a single statement about any subject can appear if nobody asks? If
one does not have a question, there is no need for an answer. This means
that opponent is necessary to even create and express one's very first
opinion about any matter. Russian thinker Michael Bakhtin's asserted that
if we have a consciousness we necessarily have two of them.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Now the question is how this is possible? You see, it
is necessary to have an interlocutor to create even a single word, and
this means you need to know one's question or statement concerning the
matter. However, in order for opposing questions or statements to be formed,
knowledge of your views, which haven't been formed yet, is needed. He or
she needs to know your statement to give his or hers back, and now it looks
as if this is quite impossible.
Once again. I need and can tell one single word responding to other strange
word, the word of other, other human, and the human needs my word to create
a respond as well. Here we meet the strongest logic face of dialogue, its
presupposition of paradox: as soon as we see a dialogue, we have to know,
there is a paradox in its beginning; as soon as we meet a paradox in any
phenomenon appearance, I know, here is some kind of dialogue as well. It
is not so easily to prove the last, but one suggestion can be offered.
It says we can prove this a contrary: if we take a paradox apart, and have
two statements, two beliefs stating cause-and-effect relations;
contradicting
each other, then choose one of them, proclaim it to be an absolute truth
and the other one to be an absolute false, doing this we make a dialogue
impossible.
On the contrary, if we keep the paradox, do not take it apart, but do
believe
both its parts make sense, we force ourselves to keep moving from one pole
to another looking for their bases, deepening into infinite dialogue.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
The alike situation we can meet trying to find logical
proof for any base notion of any science. It happens because if we proof
the notion within this theoretical system, it is not a proof but development
of identity. If we proof it from outside of this theoretical system, it
is not a proof again but development of diversity. So absolutely logical
proof of an idea has to be based inside and at the same time outside of
the theoretical system, and this is a paradox of "self proving". A self
proved idea on the other hand reflects some kind of object that do not
need any outer cause for its development, functioning or even for its existence.
Benedict Spinoza would call such an object causa sui - the cause
of itself. Truly, he believed there is one only object of this type - Universe
or Nature as the whole. I think there are a couple more: human thoughts,
creations, acts. The last ones are objects of causa sui type if they are
real choices. About this matter we will talk separately should we have
time.
Well, if the only way of being of an idea is a dialogue, how then a single
thinker can develop an idea? I conclude from all told thus far that this
thinker has to be stranger for himself, and must conduct an inner dialogue
with himself. Here we enter into the realm of psychology.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Following philosopher Vladimir Bibler I consider consciousness as special
side of mind functioning which reflects the world "in its long self-identity",
world as
is, world which was, is, and will be being the same yesterday, today, and
tomorrow.
Knowing the world in its long self-identity I have to be aware about my Self who
has known
and is going to know the world as is. Consequentially my Self for my
consciousness
performs its long self-identity too. Every subject as soon as it exists for
consciousness
is reflected in its long self-identity, stays the same for me in my past,
present and future. From this it follows that every subject is reflected
by consciousness separately from the others, from the world as a whole
and from me. Consciousness consists of my speech, all habitual activities,
relations, perceptions, all phenomena of psyche that can be recognized
by my Self as acquaintances and separated from the others.
Thought continually destroys and rebuilds consciousness. While asking
questions
why? For what? How? Were from? Etc., I make my world doubtful, destroy
its today's self-identity, change it into new one, but still mine and on
this point the same world.
Now we may ask how this works and how relates to dialogue?
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Let us recall one phenomenon, researched by a psychologist Lev Vygotsky. If you ask yourself a question or just talk to about something, you do not have to mention the subject because you know what are you talking about. Vladimir Bibler adds on this point: but if you do not pronounce your subject then you do not definitely know what are you talking about, and this makes your speech mysterious, infinitesimally mysterious in the very beginning. Now you need to say only some predicates. To continue this discourse, say, as soon as we know the predicates we do not need to pronounce them too, so we have to say something about these predicates, and again, if we know this "something", then we mean it in silence, do not tell but look for new predicates about, and so on? This shows that in order to say just one new word, I have to silent the whole of my world as I know it, the world of my consciousness, to transform it so that every single word in it gains infinitesimally new sense in its specific attachment to all other words. This gigantic construction will be defined by a new unknown subject, the mystery of which has increased infinitely.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Now, as soon as this new word has been pronounced, the
new world of my consciousness is being built, the world which includes
all "old" things with a little addition: how they look from the new subject
position.
It is obviously enough now, having two worlds - before new vision started
and after this - Self exists as two Selves, two Subjects seeing two subjects.
Let us mention, "before" and "after" here are not in time but in sense,
other strange vision has presented here all the time: without it we cannot
presuppose something new like possible, we cannot start it without it!
Here is our paradox again, but now it has turned into another one. New
element of consciousness is being built in process of silencing an existing
one. But how about the very first element? What can this thought silent
in order to build the first, not having a previous conscious subject?
Consciousness
occurs just at the moment it is being rebuilt, while thinking. In other
words thought cannot happen without consciousness and consciousness cannot
appear without thought.
But again, how all this possible? We saw, it is possible, if the word turned
to itself exists. So now we can analyze how this may happen very
psychologically.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
The following is based on a hypothesis of psychologist Gregory Sapirstein: a
polyphony of
consciousness, particularly of speech, proclaimed by Michael Bakhtin, is
psychologically
based on baby's psyche acquiring of surroundings' voices.
From the very birth the baby does not perform definite features of human
behavior. It just cries when feels uncomfortable for any reason. This pushes
adults to serve the baby, to make it feel pleasure.
What happens here? The baby's own voice is becoming meaningful for it as
are the voices of serving adults as well. These voices are concentrating
into different psychological nuclei, I call them images of personality,
which are rather independent and active. It is important that images of
personality genetically coming from outside, actually belong this person,
this baby for example. They construct its mind.
Images of personality relate to each other. In our case baby's image of
Self consists of crying and affects, and baby's images of adults consist
of attention, care, gentle talking, curiosity. We cannot say there is a
dialogue within this group, this inner microcosm, but some kind of pre-
dialogue, because there are definite attitudes among these images toward
each other. These image attitudes perform themselves in the outer baby's
behavior: on one hand as attraction of surroundings' attention, on the
other hand as a curiosity.
At the time of the "one year crisis" child, following point gesture,
discovers
a word. The communication, or I would rather say intercourse that starts
to grow around the child after this crisis is special: using point gesture
and word the child tries to organize service of it by hands of close adults.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
It could be said that there are two different children now. The first one just got used to
be the center of attention, the second one attempts to control the behavior of relatives.
The child's new activity naturally meets certain limitations that force
it to listen to adults not because of curiosity but because of necessity.
All relations between child and its surroundings begin to change, consequently
the same starts in inner drama, in relations between images of personality.
I think full adoption of the limitation function of Self image by images
of surroundings causes the "three year crisis". Since images of surroundings
control image of Self in the inner drama, in outer behavior this is reflected
by self-control. This is starting point of egocentric speech development.
So "word turned to itself" has appeared. Let us just recall one more time
Lev Vygotsky, who showed that egocentric speech in the process of interiorizing
turns into inner speech.
I want to add a couple of words in order to highlight the matter of personality
in the story told above.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Personality can be considered now as an inner intercourse or drama of special personages or quasi subjects. They are images of real people (who are or are not real interlocutors of the person) and characters of a culture, e.g. book heroes or authors. Mentioned personages which have been initially formed as aggregates of words, gestures, intonations, acts are relatively autonomous in their inner intercourse. Since inner speech has been developed, the personages of the inner drama actually work in sub consciousness and perform in consciousness through the image of Self. Therefore every idea which initially belongs to a personage of personality at the same time performs as an idea of Self, and through Self can be turned into an idea of another personage. Hence these personages are no more aggregates, but turners of ideas. Now each idea is represented differently in different images of personality, and because of this behaves like an agent or quasi subject of another type. These quasi subjects relate to each other and in this way are able to influence, to change a personal drama scenario. So an adult personality is the interaction of two inner worlds, world of people-personages and world of ideas. They perform one through another, but are rather independent, and each of them lives by its own laws.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Talking about a thinker, we understand he has to have two faces, two
voices, two minds strange for each other. Let us apply the dialogical method to search
this construction more accurately.
Imagine these two strangers within one head are
completely strange, as strange as possible, absolutely, perfectly strange for each other.
Whatever you offer them to look at, they see different subjects in the same thing;
one says this is beautiful, the other says this is functional; the first
one says maybe it is functional, but just because it has perfect shape,
still is beautiful, the other says, you are wrong as much as you right,
because first of all it is functional, that is why it looks beautiful!
You see here in this little abstract example how absolutely different ideas
are developing in dialogue, increase contradiction and go toward each other
at the same time.
This conversation in fact happened in the space of culture between thinkers
of Antiquity and Enlightenment, and we can recall huge number of actual
dialogues like this in the works of philosophers, artists, scientists.
A general idea here says the pure and completely different thinkers are
representatives of different cultures. Now, as soon as this has been told
it looks to be quite logic. Different cultures, different lifestyles, differences
in history, different worlds. They bring up quite different ways to look
at the world, to understand it, to think about!
Well, where did they appear from in one thinking head? I would formulate
my assumption as a question: since these ways of comprehending the world
had been developed, how could they disappear? Searching through works of
culture we see that opposite points of view do not disappear, but are present
as interlocutors in these works, and moreover they develop in disputes
with their descendants. We can find many examples in the works of Middle
Ages' theologs, who tried to fight theoretically their predecessors,
Greeks, Romans, Jews, and doing that reproduced and developed opponents'
logic.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Let us make a few more remarks which are essential in
this matter.
Firstly, there are, indeed, different genres of works of culture, not only
written, but performed in theater, architecture, music, etc. Within certain
culture they are related to each other, develop and bring up a diversity
of variants of the most general ideas of this culture. They are, for example,
the ideas of perfect form, tragedy and lever in Antiquity; the ideas of
Creator, Eucharist, craftsmanship, confession in the Middle Ages; the ideas
of objective knowledge, determinism, independence and responsibility of
human being in Enlightenment, etc. You may note that all my examples are
from European history, it happened just because I am a little aware about
this. The total multitude of works of a culture lets its general ideas
move to people, but as I can assume, new culture never destroys a former
one, but develops new quasi subjects to intercourse with in every single
thinking head, and this inner dialogue does not depend on this mind's attitude
to it. The multi-cultural dialogue is going on all the time while man is
alive. It may be deliberated or realized in different stages, and it is
indeed unique for every single person, but it always is.
Even in a situation when representatives of different cultures fight each
other or one of them oppresses the others, I would assume there is a good
analogy with a case of dispute between persons: as much they do argue as
much they do accept each other's points of view. It does not matter the
opponents like or hate the others? ideas, it is important here the fact
of acceptance of opponent's way to look at the world which definitely changes
the "construction" of spectator's sight.
So, our next conclusion follows: having a dialogue between persons
we for certain have different cultures-participants that can be found through
analysis of ideas' movement.
I assume the opposite works too: a culture is a kind of dialogue between
certain interlocutors - characters of culture. The analogy which works
here is an idea which can be developed only within dialogue, can really
only exist as a dialogue.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Again, what is dialogue? I would assume now, this is intercourse of personalities
as totals regarding development of their ideas.
What is inner dialogue? In short, I would formulate my point of view as
follows: inner dialogue is a human being and vice versa.
One may ask, "dialogue of whom"? The idea of dialogue says, there have
to be at least two independent interlocutors, and each of them has to know
something unknown to opponents. The question is, how it is possible for
a single person to be "an inner dialogue"?
It is possible, if the person communicates with other, outer, real opponents,
accepts their points of view, and becomes capable of generating questions
and answers on behalf of these others.
We may conclude that the inner dialogue is a consequence of the outer one,
but this is just one half of the truth, one half of the paradox.
If one does not have any problems, any questions to oneself, it definitely
means this person does not have any subject to talk about, and consequently,
does not have any reason for interlocution with others. So, on this point
the inner dialogue is prerequisite for the outer one. We have the other
half of the truth now, and the two halves together make the whole paradox:
inner and outer dialogues both are causes for and results of each other.
We see how our very first paradox of idea being turns this time into the
paradox of thought and people contact and all these paradoxes more exactly
define what is a Human Being?
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
It is easy to ask a question if you do not know something. It is difficult to do so about something you do know. That is why the idea of dialogue and thinking as well includes an idea of radical doubt, doubt about undoubted. There is another name for undoubted which is belief, and belief is an element of consciousness, supports filling of personal self-identity. So it is quite difficult for someone to doubt, to question one's belief. This deed of thought, firstly is tied to a total personality, and, secondly is possible if the total personality participates in it.
First of all let me state a purpose for the new school. It is supposed
to be first of all a school of thought and creativity that are general attributes of
dialogue and culture as well.
Referring to our purpose let us try to imagine dialogue
as a main principle of this school functioning, growth, or even mere existence. It
forwards us to expect some kind of paradox in a basement and therefore self development
of the whole thing. In this case the process of education suppose to grow
like an organic cell.
The paradox which has to reflect real contradiction in our school being
and has already appeared in experiments is between teaching and dialogue,
because the teaching forces an adoption of knowledge by students and in
its pure logic form does not allow a freedom of creativity, and the dialogue
controversially resists any oppression.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
One can say it is not a paradox yet. But it is. The
dialogue is not possible without having a subject to talk about, and real
knowledge cannot be accepted without understanding, which is a dialogue.
So what is the first? We do know from everyday experience these things,
learning and thinking do happen, but how this is possible? One more time
- this definitely is the paradox. By the way, this one has a very close
relative - the paradox between consciousness and thinking. Remember? Thought
destroys and rebuilds consciousness. Scrutinizing this relation we understand
that consciousness is being born by thought. We even saw how it happens:
when one wants to say to oneself, logically it is not necessary to name
the subject itself because it is known, then the same comes about any predicate
and so on, new element of consciousness is being built in process of silencing
an existing one. But how about the very first element? What can this thought
silent in order to build the first, not having a previous conscious subject?
They can say there may be another way to build consciousness. Let us recall
Bakhtin again: a consciousness occurs when there are two of them. In consciousness
you realize yourself, look at your inner world as if from outside, through
stranger's eyes. So consciousness occurs just at the moment it is being
rebuilt, while thinking. Thought cannot happen without consciousness and
consciousness cannot appear without thought. Likewise, real learning is
impossible beyond a dialogue, and the dialogue in fact cannot proceed without
learning.
Now let us come back to school. So we have to joint the teacher's intention
what the students have to learn and student's freedom to think, to create,
to be in dialogue and, as we saw, to be in culture. This requirement first
of all pushes us to transform the way of planning. The teacher has to have
and remember everything he wants to teach them, but cannot plan the time
and sequences of the matters to be involved. So the units to teach now
perform like guidelines for teacher's attention, thought, and analysis.
The teacher participates in the dialogue, looking for the time when the
dialogue approaches this or that topic close to material necessary to learn.
This is the first.
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
Secondly, units to be taught do not represent knowledge
in a traditional understanding; they have to provide dialogue and being
in culture. This means that every piece of knowledge must be considered
as a subject to discuss. It is then important to involve in discussion
the most basic topics, because every single culture has been developed
to respond to basic questions such as: what is this universe, what is life,
what is human being, how does this world come to exist, what is beauty,
number, word, etc. Let it be the first contents guideline to look at the
educational process.
Next, students can and have start discussion and make any naive theories
about a subject. It is then necessary to meet with the cultural achievements
in the matter. In discussion with characters and authors of classical works
students adopt developed ideas of culture in exactly the same way as in
disputes with real persons. So next contents guideline for teaching is
incorporating classical works into the discussion.
How about forms of studies? In other words what are our formal guidelines?
First of all this is free dialogue. Here every single participant, including
the teacher is valuable because of his unique way of comprehending things.
To get next orienteer let's recall one of the paradoxes mentioned above,
I mean the paradox of thinking and intercourse: if one intends to discuss
a topic it means one is interested in it, thinking about the matter, seeing
its strange unusual side; if one does not think about the matter, it means
one is not interested in it and there is not any subject to talk about.
Now the opposite. How is it possible to see an invisible aspect of a subject
if nobody shows it to you? It has to be someone ho sees this specific side
and tells you about this. Remember we are not concerned here with life
cases but with logic categories. So in this scheme intercourse cannot go
on without thinking and on the contrary thinking is impossible beyond inter
locution. So if the students are interested in a matter the free dialogue
is proper form. If not?
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
Jump Down
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy
We can start with communication, to organize some form
of it. In the beginning it can be in the form of different games, then
cultural forms of dialogue become more and more important, such as sophistic
or Socratic dialogue, orator competition, trial, scholastic dispute, dialogue
in letters, etc.
I cannot to show proofs for about 20 guidelines I can specify today, but
want just to list them and tell, it can be as many of them as many faces
a culture has. So teacher's skillfulness here is to reflect them, to select,
to group in dialogue with students.
So the guidelines are:
Conditionally content: fundamental questions of human being, genres of
creations of culture, classical problems to solve, inter-subjective problems
to solve, between-school-and-life problems, inter cultural problems, psychological
faculties, classical works of culture, skills.
Conditionally formal: free dialogue, limited dialogue, free activity, game,
stylizing, improvisation, students' teaching each other, self-learning.
It is also important that every single situation within the educational
process has a lot of senses - as many of them as many guidelines considers
teacher today. The situation correspondingly can be developed in any of
these directions, depends on teacher's opinion.
This very special project of Vladimir Bibler and his co-workers is a background I have had to build my understanding, my vision of new school. Now I want just to mention the most unusual elements of this project which seem to be quite necessary in future school construction. There are the consequent cultural classes in this school: beginning of culture, Antiquity, Middle Ages, New Times and Modern culture.
This project of mine and my co-workers is about perceiving educational system as a social institution for near future. We consider this as a system of different schools that are involved in dialogical relations, which are designed to provide intensive invention, recollection, development, critique, implementation of different pedagogic ideas.
Edited by Maureen Sharon
Theory of Dialogue
School of Dialogue
Jump Up
First Toy Second Toy
Third Toy Fourth Toy
Fifth Toy Sixth Toy